The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gadgets, Approximation, and Linear Programming
Abstract
We present a linear programming-based method for finding "gadgets," i.e., combinatorial structures reducing constraints of one optimization problem to constraints of another. A key step in this method is a simple observation which limits the search space to a finite one. Using this new method we present a number of new, computer-constructed gadgets for several different reductions. This method also answers a question posed by Bellare, Goldreich, and Sudan [SIAM J. Comput., 27 (1998), pp. 804--915] of how to prove the optimality of gadgets: linear programming duality gives such proofs. The new gadgets, when combined with recent results of Håstad [ Proceedings of the 29th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1997, pp. 1--10], improve the known inapproximability results for MAX CUT and MAX DICUT, showing that approximating these problems to within factors of $16/17 + ε$ and $12/13+ ε,$ respectively, is NP-hard for every ε > 0. Prior to this work, the best-known inapproximability thresholds for both problems were 71/72 (M. Bellare, O. Goldreich, and M. Sudan [ SIAM J. Comput., 27 (1998), pp. 804--915]). Without using the gadgets from this paper, the best possible hardness that would follow from Bellare, Goldreich, and Sudan and Håstad is 18/19. We also use the gadgets to obtain an improved approximation algorithm for MAX3 SAT which guarantees an approximation ratio of .801. This improves upon the previous best bound (implicit from M. X. Goemans and D. P. Williamson [J. ACM, 42 (1995), pp. 1115--1145]; U. Feige and M. X. Goemans [Proceedings of the Third Israel Symposium on Theory of Computing and Systems, 1995, pp. 182--189]) of .7704.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Goemans, M. X., & Williamson, D. P. (1995) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/227683.227684 · Cited by 3,587
Self-citationOptimization, approximation, and complexity classes
Papadimitriou, C. H., & Yannakakis, M. (1991) · Journal of Computer and System Sciences · doi:10.1016/0022-0000(91)90023-x · Cited by 1,653
Cited by
Some optimal inapproximability results
Håstad, J. (2001) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/502090.502098 · Cited by 1,902
Halperin, E., Livnat, D., & Zwick, U. (2004) · Journal of Algorithms · doi:10.1016/j.jalgor.2004.06.001 · Cited by 53
Towards large-scale quantum optimization solvers with few qubits
Sciorilli, M., Borges, L., Patti, T. L., García-Martín, D., Camilo, G., Anandkumar, A., & Aolita, L. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-55346-z · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Trevisan, L., Sorkin, G. B., Sudan, M., & Williamson, D. P.
- Venue
- SIAM Journal on Computing
- Published
- 2000-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2074-2097
- ISSN
- 0097-5397 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-7111
- OpenAlex
- W2146489710
- Cited by
- 199
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gadgets, Approximation, and Linear Programming. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1137/s0097539797328847
- The paper
- Trevisan, L., Sorkin, G. B., Sudan, M., & Williamson, D. P. (2000). Gadgets, Approximation, and Linear Programming. SIAM Journal on Computing. https://doi.org/10.1137/s0097539797328847
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.